HARPREET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the condition imposed vide order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to the petitioner, that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned in the case FIR No. 22/2003 under Sections 406/498A/116/342/34 IRC registered at P.S. Greater Kailash-I, Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner, who is present in person, submits that he was married to Smt. Usha Maniktala, on whose complaint above case was registered. Aliegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has joined investigation and paid Rs. 12,00,000/- towards her claim for the unrecovered articles of stridhan, without prejudice to his defence on merits. It is pleaded that the petitioner is an exporter and has to travel abroad, in connection of his business, at very short note. Learned Court, while granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 9.4.2003 imposed a condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without permission of the court. It is pleaded that seeking permission involves lot of time for procedural formalities and expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has fixed roots in the society, and his mother resides in India and she is the owner of House No. 536, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; that petitioner is owner of the factory at Okla; that they are ready and willing to file affidavit and give any further undertaking as may be deemed fit and prays that the condition be waived.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the matter is still pending investigation and the petitioner has been given right to seek permission whenever he wants to travel abroad and, no case of waiver of the condition is made out.